I like it! I've always had a problem with the way "BIGGR/SMALLR OF" feels when writing code, you know? They just never flowed very well.

Plus, this is a relatively straightforward change to the syntax. I think that adding a separate operator for "BIGGER OR SAEM DEN" also makes a lot of sense because, as you probably know, the equivalent of that is really clunky in LOLCODE.

Nice. I know exactly how it feels and am always happy when I was able to think of a way that would improve how coding feels.

I'll keep an eye on this issue and will report back when I happen to encounter other suggestions for things that somewhat break the flow.At this moment I just happen to find myself writing HAZ instead of HAS now and then and sometimes wish the interpreter would accept both variants, but I'm not 100% sure whether that would be good.

If there is anything you're unsatisfied with I might be able to think of something, too. Keep up the good work and keep implementing new things. I really like the syntax and lci being a light-weight and performant interpreterIt would be nice to have a somewhat complete and coherent feeling language that covers the majority of basic ANSI C features someday in the future for shits and giggles. If it reminds people that writing code can be fun it already paid off.

Last edited by JustSayin on Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

JustSayin, you have a talent for this! I'm thinking that we can compile a list of potential language modifications and include them in a draft 1.3 language specification which will basically describe the language syntax and semantics that lci implements. Technically the language allows "HAI <VERSION_NUMBER>", so this can be used for backwards compatibility between the different language specs.

The problem with both BIGG(U)R DEN and PWNZ is that they're both infix operators, and everything else is a prefix operator. This matters because we don't have to deal with operator precedence at the moment. There was a thread on the old forum, now on the Wayback Machine, that went through this in more detail.

I like the suggestion that started that thread; SORTD and BAKWARD, which conveniently make sense for infinite arity orderings too. The only problem is whether these include equality or not, and what to call the other version. REELY SORTD? SAEM OR SORTD?